G&R Tactical
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: Which is more reliable?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    14
    Feedback Score
    0

    Which is more reliable?

    Which is the more reliable AR? top cocker or SP-1? Thank you.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    936
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    I don't believe the method of retracting the bolt carrier does anything at all to affect reliability.
    Last edited by mack7.62; 06-29-19 at 07:23.
    “The Trump Doctrine is ‘We’re America, Bitch.’ That’s the Trump Doctrine.”

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Pensacola, FL
    Posts
    1,189
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by mack7.62 View Post
    I don't believe the method of retracting the bolt carrier does anything at all to affect reliability.
    I have to agree. The top-charging handle on the Armalite AR-15 and AR-10 were cumbersome. In 1959, ArmaLite sold its rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt due to financial difficulties, and limitations in terms of manpower and production capacity. Shortly after acquiring the rights, Colt made some modifications to the design. I believe that the reason why Colt redesigned the charging method was to make it more accessible and less cumbersome to use. It had nothing to do with reliability. Reliability lies more with the operating system (gas blowback, BCG, and buffer system). Additionally, proper maintenance and good ammo can almost assure good reliability from any weapon.
    Last edited by Renegade04; 07-01-19 at 07:00.
    "A Bad Day At The Range Is Better Than A Great Day Working"

    USMC Force Recon 1978-1984
    US Air Force Res. 1995-2004 (Air Transportation)
    M16/AR15 shooter since 1978, gun collector and AR builder since 2004
    Oath Keeper member
    III% United Patriots member

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    SWMT
    Posts
    7,226
    Feedback Score
    32 (100%)
    I keep hearing that Colt moved the charging handle on the AR-15 due to complaints from the Army about the charging handle heating up.

    I think it's sort of interesting that none of the military users of the AR-10 appear to have had similar complaints about that rifle.
    " Political tags — such as [...], communist, democrat, [...], fascist, liberal, conservative, [...] — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. "
    - Robert Heinlein -

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    SW WA
    Posts
    281
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)

    Which is more reliable?

    If Colt had kept the top charger, would we have flat tops today?
    Last edited by czgunner; 07-01-19 at 07:50.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,291
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MountainRaven View Post
    I keep hearing that Colt moved the charging handle on the AR-15 due to complaints from the Army about the charging handle heating up.

    I think it's sort of interesting that none of the military users of the AR-10 appear to have had similar complaints about that rifle.
    That's what I had always heard too, and that the primary reason for the carry handle was to protect the top mounted charging handle and it's utility as a way to carry the rifle was just a convenient side effect. When the charging handle was moved to it's current location, they simply kept the carry handle upper receiver design until coming up with the flattop decades later.

    Odd thing though, looking at pics of some very old Armalite AR-10 prototypes in a book I have, the carry handle actually seems to have predated the top charging handle, suggesting that perhaps the original intent of the carry handle really was as a carry handle after all.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    525
    Feedback Score
    0
    The handle may have had several sources. With the utterly straight stock, it was necessary to raise the sights or there would be no way for the firer to look thru' them. Coincidentally, the carrying handle was needed, since the magazine is at the center of balance. We usually hooked our thumb thru' the the handle and around the handguard ahead of the magwell.
    That said, the handle helped make the older ARs nice to handle...I don't own any flattops. How do ya' carry one?
    The 'heat' issue is what I've heard; did the finger reciprocate with the BCG? Presume the finger's travel slot remained open to debris?
    Moon

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    SWMT
    Posts
    7,226
    Feedback Score
    32 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Circle_10 View Post
    That's what I had always heard too, and that the primary reason for the carry handle was to protect the top mounted charging handle and it's utility as a way to carry the rifle was just a convenient side effect. When the charging handle was moved to it's current location, they simply kept the carry handle upper receiver design until coming up with the flattop decades later.

    Odd thing though, looking at pics of some very old Armalite AR-10 prototypes in a book I have, the carry handle actually seems to have predated the top charging handle, suggesting that perhaps the original intent of the carry handle really was as a carry handle after all.
    If you look at the contemporaries of the AR-10, most of them had carry handles, so I suspect that the carry handle was intended to function as a carry handle all along - along with serving to protect the charging handle. I recall the carry handle being a selling point on the FAL, G3, &c.

    (Finding images of the earliest AR-10 prototypes appears to confirm that the carry handle is, indeed, there to carry the rifle, as the charging handle was not located inside the carry handle like on the production models or the AR-15 prototypes. In fact, the carry handle predates the AR-10 having iron sights.)

    Quote Originally Posted by halfmoonclip View Post
    The handle may have had several sources. With the utterly straight stock, it was necessary to raise the sights or there would be no way for the firer to look thru' them. Coincidentally, the carrying handle was needed, since the magazine is at the center of balance. We usually hooked our thumb thru' the the handle and around the handguard ahead of the magwell.
    That said, the handle helped make the older ARs nice to handle...I don't own any flattops. How do ya' carry one?
    The 'heat' issue is what I've heard; did the finger reciprocate with the BCG? Presume the finger's travel slot remained open to debris?
    Moon
    The charging handle did not reciprocate on the AR-10 or the AR-15 prototypes.

    IIRC, the the charging handle slot did seal the receiver against debris, but the earlier versions could get debris in the charging handle track.

    As for a flattop, in the field, I usually carry it in my hands, using a sling.

    An original ArmaLite promotional video on the AR-10 (the carry handle is specifically referred to as a, "carrying handle"):

    Last edited by MountainRaven; 07-02-19 at 02:28.
    " Political tags — such as [...], communist, democrat, [...], fascist, liberal, conservative, [...] — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. "
    - Robert Heinlein -

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    525
    Feedback Score
    0
    'Raven, good link; the handle was indeed a handle, combined with the sights. Stoner was thinking outside the box. Can't imagine any way that the charging finger track could be kept closed, which is likely another reason it was changed to the charging handle we now know.
    How about the 'no oil, little or no cleaning' business? Tho' they did finally accept wiping down the BCG.
    Moon

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    14
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MountainRaven View Post
    I keep hearing that Colt moved the charging handle on the AR-15 due to complaints from the Army about the charging handle heating up.

    I think it's sort of interesting that none of the military users of the AR-10 appear to have had similar complaints about that rifle.
    Whether 10,000 rounds or one round, I clean my weaponry after every firing session. Also. My 1980 WV DNR safe hunting instructor told us the SP-1 AR-15 is not recommended because of reliability issues. Therefore, I'm with top cocker as more reliable than SP-1, too. This from a whom a guy considers a stock M&P 15 Sport 2 as a D grade rifle, also.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •